Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
scarab92 | on: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users
You can’t claim this is unfair to China, when China requires foreign companies enter into joint ventures which give the Chinese partner majority voting share.

The US is simply reciprocating.

kelseydh | parent
I don't think it's unfair to China, I think it's unfair to European countries, Canada, Australia, and the rest of the world that uses TikTok who are watching the U.S. demand it is entitled to run and control TikTok.

This would be like the U.S. forcing Spotify's Swedish headquarters to accept U.S. ownership.

timhowwan | root | parent | next
Then Europe should grows some balls and ban TikTok. China is literally a foreign invader not just a foreign adversary, aiding in Russia’s conquest of Europe. And trying to destroy Europe’s car industry via state subsidized EVs

India literally banned TikTok overnight when China killed Indian soldiers in 2020

Ray20 | root | parent | next
> China is literally a foreign invader not just a foreign adversary

TikTok ban is not about vengeance on China, it's about violations of own citizens' freedoms.

> aiding in Russia’s conquest of Europe

Russia right now is weaker and has the least potential to conquer anything than literally ever before.

kelseydh | root | parent | next
Every state to a different degree subsidizes its automobile industry.

Living in Australia now with access to Chinese EV's is eyeopening. It's great for the consumer. To the extent you accept EV's as a solution for reducing GHG's, the cheaper prices are making it easier to end our reliance on oil. Americans don't realize what they are missing out on.

Better than Tesla-quality vehicles for half the price.

briandear | root | parent
Why exactly are they half the price? What are the externalities of Chinese EV manufacturing. They may be half the price, but I doubt they are half the cost.
saagarjha | root | parent | next
India still depends on Chinese imports and technology, regardless of how it feels about the country. The TikTok thing was an easy political stunt.
Teever | root | parent
If banning Tik Tok is an easy political stunt then why has this spawned a couple several thousand comment posts in the last 48 hours alone?
loading story #42770832
loading story #42767557
tsimionescu | root | parent | next
Since we all live in democratic regimes, maybe, just maybe, the will of the people should matter here at least a little bit? Banning TikTok is a deeply unpopular idea, across all party lines. It's only popular among the anti-democratic elites, from Trump (who first got this ball rolling), to Biden, to European leaders playing their "high-level" games.
creato | root | parent
This is simply false, at least in the US. A small majority favor banning it. It's not huge, but it's not a "deeply unpopular idea".
loading story #42766071
courseofaction | root | parent
You're really not going to enjoy history class when it comes to American empire
kelnos | root | parent
I think most Westerners would prefer the US remaining dominant than ceding that position of power to China, regardless of the US's foreign policy monstrosities over time.

And for those Westerners who do not, I think it would be useful to ask them why they think a country like China (or Russia, or North Korea) would be better for their interests than the US, even with someone like Trump in power.

loading story #42766541
loading story #42768663
loading story #42768902
loading story #42768246
1659447091 | root | parent | next
It does not say they have to sell to the US. Only divest as to no longer be considered controlled by a `foreign adversary` of the United States.[0] The bill also gives this power to future administrations.

It was literally called Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.

Not, All your app are belong to us.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Fore...

johnny22 | root | parent | next
Does the law said it has to be sold to a US entity? I think it just can't be run by "adversary"
mjevans | root | parent | next
More fair would have been a restriction based on some framework like...

+ Public forum or utility

+ Userbase greater than 1% of the adult population

= Majority Ownership of corporate division and management, plus regulatory oversight, must be held within country OR a security partnered country (the easiest criteria for that might be they have an obligation to fight along side 'our' troops in some way).

That way it isn't specific about any given platform or company, and it allows anyone trusted as an ally to comprise the ownership or legal jurisdiction.

HWR_14 | root | parent
That's almost exactly how the law was written. Only the userbase was specified in absolute numbers (1 million MAU).
josephcsible | root | parent | next
But if the EU or Canada or Australia bought it, that would fulfill the terms of the law.
yyyfb | root | parent | next
EU countries are asleep at the wheel on matters of national security and sovereignty. Spotify is not a matter of national security. TikTok, and social networking in general, has been one for some time now. Misinformation, conspiracy theories, actual conspiracies to overthrow govt, etc have all found renewed vigor thanks to social networks.

US on the other hand now has its social media controlled by oligarchs, not much better maybe.

alfiedotwtf | root | parent
If that’s your position, then you would be fine if EU countries were to pull out all US telco infrastructure because of their previous abuses towards European citizens?
loading story #42769336
loading story #42770524
linkregister | root | parent | next
What is your opinion on India's ban of TikTok a few years ago?
tgma | root | parent
You do realize many US companies are not practically allowed to operate in some European jurisdictions? Uber and Amazon come to mind.
wqaatwt | root | parent | next
That has nothing to with them being US companies. Or are there any jurisdictions where Bolt/(other local company) is allowed to freely operate but Uber is banned?
norman784 | root | parent
Aren’t they for a different reason, like workers law protection?
tgma | root | parent
Those are just examples. Whatever the reason for each, sovereign jurisdictions don't allow free access to their resources/markets just out of spite. That includes Europe.
wqaatwt | root | parent
That’s only partially true though. I don’t think Uber itself is not allowed to operate anywhere. Rather it’s business model is illegal in some cities/areas. Usually you can still use Uber to hire actual taxis there.

However exact same rules apply to its European competitors like Bolt. Make it entirely unrelated to this situation.